04.2026 …..App v. Sh. Krisha rishan Kumar, Financial Commiss missioner, Punjab & Ors.

avit of Ms. Pragati Sethi, Assis Assistant Excise and Taxation VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4847 of 2024 (O & M) 3 Commissio missioner-1, Excise and Taxation Offi n Officer, Amritsar, on behalf of respondent ndent No.3 has already been filed in t ed in the Registry, which is taken on record. ecord. Copy thereof is supplied to lied to learned counsel for the ioner. petitioner. Learned counsel for the respo e respondents, at the very outset, refers to t s to the averments made in para 9 para 9 of the said reply dated

02.3.2026, .2026, which reads as follows :- “xxx xxx

9. That the contenti tention raised by the petitioner the basis of the Demand Notice dated

25.11.2010 (Annexure ure P-1) is legally untenable and is hereby specific ecifically denied, as the said demand notice neither c her confers any vested right nor can it override the st e statutory scheme governing refund and interest o st or the binding directions issued by this Hon'ble n'ble Court; it is an admitted position, as recorde the order dated

25.09.2025, the principal refund of Rs.3,50,647/- was duly duly made on 28.01.2013 and that, in compliance ce with the judgment dated

02.08.2024, interest fo t for the period during which the amount actually ly remained withheld has already been calculate lated, sanctioned and paid to the petitioner to the e he extent of Rs.1,84,089/- vide speaking order dated ted 19.09.2024, and a further sum of Rs.82,403/-vid vide speaking order dated

13.12.2024, has also also been paid pursuant to subsequent judicial d l directions, aggregating to Rs.2,66,493/-towards in ds interest; once the principal amount stood refunde unded in January 2013, no further interest could a ld accrue thereafter in law, as VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4847 of 2024 (O & M) 4 interest under the app applicable taxing statutes is compensatory and co- -terminus with the period of delay in refund and can cannot be claimed beyond the date of actual refun refund; judgment dated

02.08.2024 does not di ot direct payment of interest as per the unilateral calc calculations contained in the demand notice, but ma t mandates payment strictly "as per law", which has b as been scrupulously complied with by the respondents ents; therefore, the petitioner's insistence on recalculat culation of interest on the basis of the demand notice da ce dated 25.11.2010 amounts to an impermissible attem ttempt to enlarge the scope of the judgment and see seek interest upon interest, which is neither conte ontemplated under the statute y nor sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court, and t consequently the claim laim so raised deserves to be rejected as devoid of m of merit and not disclosing any willful or intentional d al disobedience on the part of the respondents. xxx” It is submitted by learned co ned counsel for the respondents that in view in view of the above, the Writ Cour t Court order has been complied with. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner has submitted that the payment ha ent has not been made to the petitio petitioner as per Demand Notice dated 25.11

25.11.2010 (Annexure P-1). It is s It is submitted that in the order dated 2.8.2

2.8.2024, it was clear cut direction ection of the Writ Court that the respondent ndents would have to pay the amoun amount withheld. It is submitted that as per as per the Demand Notice dated 25.1 d 25.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) an amount of nt of Rs.4,42,275/- had been withhe withheld by the respondents and VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4847 of 2024 (O & M) 5 therefore, t fore, they were required to pay the sai the said amount of Rs.4,42,275/-; whereas t respondents have made the payment of only Rs.3,50,647 ,50,647/-. Learned counsel for the respon respondents has clarified the said contention ention of learned counsel for the petiti petitioner by submitting that the amount of nt of Rs.4,42,275/- being demanded b nded by the petitioner is inclusive of interest. terest. Learned counsel for the resp e respondents refers to the reply dated 2.3.2

2.3.2026 once again to submit that u that upon receipt of the Demand Notice fro ce from the petitioner, the respon respondents had first passed a Speaking O king Order dated 19.9.2024 (Annexur nexure R-1) in which calculation of paymen yment of principal amount alongw longwith interest was made as - follows :- “In view of the above, en e, enunciation of law, the instant appeals are also disposed of in f in terms of the judgment in M/s Cobra Instalaciones Y. Services’ ices’s case (supra). In compliance to the dire irection passed by the Hon’ble Court interest on delayed paym ayment of refund is calculated as under :- Date of application of refund Amount of refund applied Due date of disposal of refund application Amount of refund granted Total delayed in grant of refund Interest calculated on delayed payment @ 1.5% 350647*1.5%*35=

25.11.2010 Rs.350647/-

25.2.2010 Rs.350647/- 35 months 25.2.2010 28.1.2013 Rs.1,84,089/- After due calculation, an n, an amount of Rs.1,84,089/- is found to be refunded to the dea dealer on account of interest on delayed payment of refund.” It is submitted that therefore, t fore, the interest had been paid to the petition etitioner from 25.2.2010 to 28.1.2013 .2013 for a period of 35 months. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4847 of 2024 (O & M) 6 It is submi submitted that thereafter taking into a into account the judgment dated

13.8.2008 .2008 passed by this Court in CWP N WP No.19579 of 2002 titled as “M/s Keso Kesob Plants vs. Bharat Sanchar nchar Nigam Ltd. and others” whereby S eby Section 10(C) and Rule 25(A) 25(A) of PGST Act 1948 were declared u red unconstitutional. The responde pondents had again revised the interest pay est payable to the petitioner and had h had held him entitled to grant of interest fro est from 11.11.2008 upto 28.1.2013

1.2013 i.e. for a period of 51 ths. months. Consequentially, vide second second Speaking Order dated

13.12.2024

2.2024 (Annexure R-2) interest paya t payable to the petitioner was calculated i lated in the following manner :- Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description refund applied applie refund Amount 25.11.2010 Amount 28.1.2013 Interest to be given from th Sec.10(C) the act has been ultra vires granted grante om the date een declared Amount on Rs.3,50,647/- on Rs.3,50,647/-

11.11.2008 days after judgment) (90

11.11.2008 28.1.2013 Rs.2,66,492/- Total months delayed refund in grant of 51 months from in gr ayed payment Interest calculated on delayed p (@1% 350647*1%*=3507 @1.5% 3506478*1.5%*50=262 =3507+262985=266492 Less interest already granted vid No.26 dated 19.9.2024 Balance interest too be paid 0=262985 ted vide order Rs.1,84,089/- Rs.82,403/- It is subm submitted that therefore the Writ C Writ Court order stand entirely complied w lied with. Heard. In view of the above noted noted facts and the submissions made by le by learned counsel for the responden ondents, no further directions are VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4847 of 2024 (O & M) 7 required to ired to be issued in the present contem contempt petition. Accordingly, the contem ontempt petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 April 08, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document